When is a liberal interpretation of the Constitution UnAmerican?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.

 

[Divine Wind]

when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.

That would be one. Another is when they seek to restrict the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.

That would be one. Another is when they seek to restrict the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens.

what would be best example of that?

 

[Divine Wind]

when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.

That would be one. Another is when they seek to restrict the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens.

what would be best example of that?

Seeking to require all honest citizens register and maintain a government record of gun ownership is one example.

 

[yiostheoy]

when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.

It is the job description of the SCOTUS justices to interpret the Constitution.

There are 2 kinds of SCOTUS justices -- strict constructionists vs activist.

Activist justices read things into the Constitution that were not there.

Strict constructionist justices apply the literal English language of the Constitution in light of the judicial precedent under English Common Law.

Swing voters are a combo of both.

Kennedy and Roberts are swing voters.

Thomas and Alito are strict constructionists.

Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are activists.

Trump will be nominating 1 new justice soon, and possibly another in the next 4 years too.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is the job description of the SCOTUS justices to interpret the Constitution.
.

I don't think so. It is their job to read it and apply it.

 

[TipOfTheIceberg]

corporations are people! Some much for the wisdom of a RWnut court.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Conservatives do this all the time...The constitution isn't constructed to be rigged outside of the no, no's in the amendments. We're one of the few nations on earth that has judicial review to prevent this and to allow it to move with the time. Conservatives would make this nation one of the least democratic nations on earth if they got their way. The voters couldn't vote for anything at the federal level.

What is funny is abortion, national gun laws and other shit conservatives wish for wouldn't be constitutional either.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think our system is too restrictive as is and believe a UK or Canadian Westminster muilti-party system is superior. People should be able to vote for the policies that they think is best for the time.

Staying in the 18th century is dumb.

 

[Anathema]

what would be best example of that?

Thousands of gun laws.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think the reality that conservatives don't understand judicial review, case law and Supremacy Clause and Commence clause. Not understanding the reality that our federal government has this kind of power and living in confederation times before the current constitution is anti-American.

 

[TipOfTheIceberg]

when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.

That would be one. Another is when they seek to restrict the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens.

"law abiding citizens". I get sick of hearing that. Some of the worst serial killers in history were law abiding citizens. If yu love guns does that automaticly make a person a law abiding citizen?

 

[Divine Wind]

"law abiding citizens". I get sick of hearing that. Some of the worst serial killers in history were law abiding citizens. If yu love guns does that automaticly make a person a law abiding citizen?

Sick of hearing about law-abiding citizens? The tip of the iceberg are those who hate everyone who is different than themselves and who seek to convict someone of a crime before any crime has been committed. If you have a solution to serial killers, gang-bangers and domestic abuse, please post it. If you solution is to impose a mandatory gun-ban under a police state, be honest enough to admit it.

 

[Divine Wind]

Conservatives do this all the time...The constitution isn't constructed to be rigged outside of the no, no's in the amendments. We're one of the few nations on earth that has judicial review to prevent this and to allow it to move with the time. Conservatives would make this nation one of the least democratic nations on earth if they got their way. The voters couldn't vote for anything at the federal level.

What is funny is abortion, national gun laws and other shit conservatives wish for wouldn't be constitutional either.

I think the reality that conservatives don't understand judicial review, case law and Supremacy Clause and Commence clause. Not understanding the reality that our federal government has this kind of power and living in confederation times before the current constitution is anti-American.

Nice examples of stereotyping and bigotry. You do the same with gender and race or just differing political points of view?

 

[Divine Wind]

corporations are people! Some much for the wisdom of a RWnut court.

Congress can fix that. Why didn't they?

Hillary raised a lot more money than Trump from corporations and the 1%ers. Did you vote for her?

 

[Cellblock2429]

corporations are people! Some much for the wisdom of a RWnut court.

The USSC declared corporations artificial people so they can be regulated, taxes and sued. You dimwit

 

[TipOfTheIceberg]

corporations are people! Some much for the wisdom of a RWnut court.

The USSC declared corporations artificial people so they can be regulated, taxes and sued. You dimwit

Give me an example or link. It was done so they could make unlimited political donations and usurp the power of the common man.
now just calm down and eat your pudding you mean spirited wanker.

 

[Divine Wind]

corporations are people! Some much for the wisdom of a RWnut court.

The USSC declared corporations artificial people so they can be regulated, taxes and sued. You dimwit

Give me an example or link. It was done so they could make unlimited political donations and usurp the power of the common man.
now just calm down and eat your pudding you mean spirited wanker.

The Citizens United ruling was a watershed moment for political campaigns. Still, SCOTUS rules on the law, it's up to Congress to make Constitutional laws.

The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters
The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.

In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

So if the decision was about spending, why has so much been written about contributions? Like seven and eight-figure donations from people like casino magnate and billionaire Sheldon Adelson who, with his family, has given about $40 million to so-called “super PACs,” formed in the wake of the decision?

For that, we need to look at another court case — SpeechNow.org v. FEC. The lower-court case used the Citizens United case as precedent when it said that limits on contributions to groups that make independent expenditures are unconstitutional.

And that’s what led to the creation of the super PACs, which act as shadow political parties. They accept unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations and unions and use it to buy advertising, most of it negative.

The Supreme Court kept limits on disclosure in place, and super PACs are required to report regularly on who their donors are. The same can’t be said for “social welfare” groups and some other nonprofits, like business leagues.

These groups can function the same way as super PACs, so long as election activity is not their primary activity. But unlike the super PACs, nonprofits do not report who funds them. That’s disturbing to those who favor transparency in elections. An attempt by Congress to pass a law requiring disclosure was blocked by Republican lawmakers.

The Citizens United decision was surprising given the sensitivity regarding corporate and union money being used to influence a federal election. Congress first banned corporations from funding federal campaigns in 1907 with the Tillman Act. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act extended the ban to labor unions. But the laws were weak and tough to enforce.

 

[TipOfTheIceberg]

thank you. ^

 

[gipper]

Conservatives do this all the time...The constitution isn't constructed to be rigged outside of the no, no's in the amendments. We're one of the few nations on earth that has judicial review to prevent this and to allow it to move with the time. Conservatives would make this nation one of the least democratic nations on earth if they got their way. The voters couldn't vote for anything at the federal level.

What is funny is abortion, national gun laws and other shit conservatives wish for wouldn't be constitutional either.

If only the Constitution was actually adhered to by the central government. If it were, government would be limited to doing only what the Constitution allows...this is what limited government means. Please take note.

Nearly everything the central government is currently doing is unconstitutional. Sadly too many dummies like you don't know this clear and evident fact.

That is the problem with some lefties. You are generally uninformed so facts surprise you.